headers
Joe Beresford | 1 Dec 2004 02:04

Re: Carry in church...?


Hoewevr Please check if you are in OHIO as I ......
please note (((taken from  packing org))))) That one of the places 
off limits is a house of worship...Church...however...what people 
don't see may protect them I know a catholic priest in cincy that 
when he goes running everday is packing a sweet 45....

Places off-limits while carrying 
Date updated: Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Sec. 2923.126. (B) … does not authorize the licensee to carry a 
firearm

A Police Station. 
Sheriff's Office 
State Highway Patrol Station 
Premises controlled by the Bureau of Criminal Identification and 
Investigation, 
State Correctional Institution, Jail, Workhouse, or other Detention 
Facility, 
Airport Passenger Terminal, 
School 
Courthouse or building that Houses a Court. 
Public or Private College/University (May keep locked in Vehicle in 
Packing lot) 

House of Worship.

Child Day-Care Center. 
Any and all areas of a building that is owned or leased by this state
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dan | 1 Dec 2004 02:05

Springfield Champion


A friend of mine wants to buy his first carry gun.  He's partial to 
1911s so he's considering the Springfield Champion model.

Does anyone on the list carry one of these?  If so, can you relate your 
experience carrying it, and can you recommend a good holster that works 
well with it?

Thanks.

Dan

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/soUolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

For info on individual US state CCW, see: http://www.packing.org
To unsubscribe, send a message to: concealed-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/concealed/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    concealed-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Earl F. Hawkes, Jr. | 1 Dec 2004 02:22

Re: Re: The murderous "mung"


Thanks, I believe you're correct. I couldn't think of it.
Earl.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Riddle" <mriddle <at> papillion.ne.us>
To: <concealed <at> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [concealed] Re: The murderous "mung"

>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:27:40 -0700, Earl F. Hawkes, Jr. wrote:
>
> >Actually I think its for their livers, or some other organ, not their
> >"johnsons".
>
> "They say" it's the gall bladders.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For info on individual US state CCW, see: http://www.packing.org
> To unsubscribe, send a message to: concealed-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
GUN | 1 Dec 2004 03:35
Picon
Favicon

Re: Springfield Champion


While I am not familiar with the SA Champion, I am uniquely familiar 
with the 1911. 

A couple of points to consider are reliability and comfort.

The 1911 design is inherently reliable, but there has been a trend in 
recent years toward what I feel is "too much accuracy" for a carry 
gun. The 1911 has been reliable because it wasn't built "too tight". 
When the 1911 became popular for competition it needed to be 
more "accurate". The fit of the individual parts was critical for 
this accuracy and in the long run "street reliability suffered 
because of that. It wasn't long after that manufacturers began to 
make "Competition 1911's". This translated to a surge in purchases by 
people that wanted to carry concealed the same gun that the top 
shooters used to win the top matches. Just because a firearm is built 
for and wins compititions does not mean it will make a good carry 
gun. 

In my mind this is and was a mistake driven by the market. There are 
two types of accuracy involving firearms, intrinsic and practical. 
Intrinsic accuracy is what the firearm is capable of in and of 
itsself. Think firing it from a locked vice. Practical accuracy is 
what a shooter is capable of doing with that same firearm holding it 
in both hands. Truthfully most modern firearms from reputable 
manufacturers are more accurate than most shooters can shoot them.

That is not to dismiss accuracy out of hand. Far from it accuracy is 
a very important part of a self-defense firearm. The point it that 
a "carry 1911" does not need to be so tight that it will shoot one
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Peter Bucy | 1 Dec 2004 05:19
Favicon

RE: Re: Springfield Champion


 Your post helps explain why some folks have 1911's that are very reliable
and why other owners of this firearm do not consider it to be reliable
enough for CCW.

 Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: GUN [mailto:gunhunter308 <at> yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:36 PM
To: concealed <at> yahoogroups.com
Subject: [concealed] Re: Springfield Champion

While I am not familiar with the SA Champion, I am uniquely familiar
with the 1911.

A couple of points to consider are reliability and comfort.

The 1911 design is inherently reliable, but there has been a trend in
recent years toward what I feel is "too much accuracy" for a carry
gun. The 1911 has been reliable because it wasn't built "too tight".
When the 1911 became popular for competition it needed to be
more "accurate". The fit of the individual parts was critical for
this accuracy and in the long run "street reliability suffered
because of that. It wasn't long after that manufacturers began to
make "Competition 1911's". This translated to a surge in purchases by
people that wanted to carry concealed the same gun that the top
shooters used to win the top matches. Just because a firearm is built
for and wins compititions does not mean it will make a good carry
gun.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rick Schwartz | 1 Dec 2004 05:30

My translation...


Here's the excerpt from the real article...
----------------------------------------------------

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they
should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If
unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most
cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn't possible,
act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a
struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without
the intruder's awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means.
People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no
chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as
"Please don't hurt me".

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1377062004

Here's my translation of it into plain English...
---------------------------------------------------------

There is an alternative when someone is accosting you.

The civilized, non-gun owning citizen should first try to reason with the
scamp. Tell him that you have no intentions of harming him and reassure him
of this by explaining that you don't believe in violence and own no weapons
of your own.

If necessary, utilize the "Safe, Non-Violent, Limp (SNiVeL) Technique" which
was developed by the renowned anti-gun guru, Josh Suckerman.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Ted Riedel | 1 Dec 2004 07:17

Re: My translation...


That article made me want to puke.

I don't remember if THIS link came from this group or not, but I am 
begining to think that the Brits may be beyond help.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/28/do2802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/28/ixop.html

Ted

Molon Labe

Rick Schwartz wrote:

> Here's the excerpt from the real article...
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they
> should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If
> unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most
> cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn't 
> possible,
> act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables 
> without a
> struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without
> the intruder's awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means.
> People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no
> chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as
> "Please don't hurt me".
>
> <http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1377062004>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Ty | 1 Dec 2004 10:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: My translation...


Nothing short of an armed revolt could save them.

How likely is that, given the level of feminization
and de-weaponization the serfs have allowed to
happen to them?

Ty

Ted Riedel <ted <at> shadowsfall.org> wrote:

That article made me want to puke.

I don't remember if THIS link came from this group or not, but I am 
begining to think that the Brits may be beyond help.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/28/do2802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/28/ixop.html

Ted

Molon Labe

Rick Schwartz wrote:

> Here's the excerpt from the real article...
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they
> should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If
> unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most
> cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn't
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Jeff Kline | 1 Dec 2004 13:34

Re: Carry in church...?


on 11/28/04 12:35, Steve at steve <at> f-r-i.com wrote:

> 
> At 11:50 AM 11/28/2004, you wrote:
>> So we choose to recognize rights for an entity where such rights are
>> NOT stated in the Constitution, yet we flaunt our "superior"
>> Constitutional rights in the face of others' Constitutional property
>> rights?
> 
> 
> I've got the Constitution/BOR on my wall behind my monitor.  Where does it
> say that one may abridge my right to self protection on their property?  I
> don't see it.

It says that the Federal government cannot abridge those rights.  Its silent
on whether I can abridge those rights if you are on my property.  Now the
14th amendment has been selectively used to apply some of the BOR to state
government and even to entities.  But the 2nd has not been so incorporated.

Jeff

*******************************************************************
Jeffrey S. Kline                            Columbia, Missouri

http://www.moconcealedcarry.com/

http://www.jklinephd.com/
*******************************************************************
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ty | 1 Dec 2004 10:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: My translation...


William WAllace is turning in his grave.

Pathetic!  What a shame the once proud
warrior Scots have allowed their society to
be feminized to such a level!

Good Job on the translation!
I think that needs to be published as
an editorial.  You could quote the
same excperpt with attribution.

BTW, is their an e-mail addy for the good "Doctor"?

Ty

Rick Schwartz <thelemur <at> jorsm.com> wrote:

Here's the excerpt from the real article...
----------------------------------------------------

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they
should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If
unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most
cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn't possible,
act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a
struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without
the intruder's awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means.
People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no
chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane